Multi-member districts may be key to voters having variety of candidates to choose from and to consistently electing broadly-based legislatures. FPTP is a system where only one representative is elected in each district. But multi-member districts, used in a variety of electoral systems, create healthier elections and broadly-based legislatures if the electoral system is at all fair. (Of the main pro-rep systems, STV is mostly thought of as using districts. But party-list pro-rep and MMP, although creating broadly-based legislatures, too must use multi-member districts of one sort or another.)
Recently, in my reading of the Proportional Representation Review [magazine] of 1903 (yes, 1903), I learned that multi-member districts (using whatever system) all naturally encourage each party to run a range of candidates to appeal to as many voters as possible.
This was true whether Cumulative Voting, Limited Voting, or STV was used, It was also true when Block Voting was used in Edmonton in 1921 although that system is flawed - one group took all the seats. The 1921 saw more women run in Edmonton than ever before under FPTP. Actually no women had run in Edmonton before 1921. 1917 was the first election where women had the vote and no women ran in Edmonton under FPTP, but under Block Voting in 1921, with Edmonton as a multi-member district, three women ran, one in each of the three parties that ran full slates of candidates. This mixed gender representation on the slate hints at other variety among each party's slates.
As only the Liberals were elected due to Block Voting's unfairness, we know little about the variety of opinions among the Conservative and Independent Labour Party slates. For sure there was variety on the Liberal slate, Nellie McClung was close in feeling to the reformers within the UFA, which happened to be elected government in this election, while a fellow Liberal, Andrew McClellan, was a businessman.
Multi-member districts nurture the nomination of a variety of candidates. A range of candidates then encourages voters to get out and vote. And of course leads to a multi-faceted legislature, if the electoral system is at all fair.
multi-member districts means that less often are voters prevented from voting for whom they truly want to see elected.
This was noted back in 1924: "STV shares with the plurality vote at-large important advantages over the ward system in that it gives every voter a wide variety of choice and does not force him to be represented by one of his neighbours if he prefers someone else." (Proportional Representation Review, 1924) Multi-member districts - a simple fix - evoke this variety of good things. It even limits the ability of the powers-that-be to use gerrymandering to get advantage - larger, fewer districts, especially if based on city boundaries or county boundaries, pretty much eliminate gerrymandering.
It also means there is less benefit to be gained by buying a single vote. A district with three times the members has about three times the number of voters, and each vote is thus worth only one third. So it should lead to cleaner elections. Not that corruption is an issue today in elections but this would be an added precaution. (The increased use of vote buying in single-member districts, when the value of a single vote is directly proportional to the limit in the number of electors, was pointed out in the Elections Canada, "A History of the Vote in Canada," available online.)
And yes I believe multi-member districts and single voting legally could be brought in for city elections in Edmonton today.
Single voting is allowed now. That is how Edmonton votes for councillors.
Most municipalities in Alberta elect their members in one city-wide district. Edmonton and only two others use wards. The government allows either. The government likely would allow three or four multi-member districts in the City of Edmonton, if the City approached it. If not, the city itself could be one multi-member district, and that certainly is allowed. Even if the City was one district, "local" representation would not be lost necessarily. Voters would be free to vote for candidates based on whatever criterion they want - local representation could be ensured where voters felt strongly enough to vote for - and give their primary back-up preferences - to local candidates. If enough voters concentrated their preferences on candidates of local identity (or of any other type of identity), a candidate of that type would be elected - if the supporters had the numbers (quota). There would be nothing that any other group could do about it. It is up to voters if "local representation" is uppermost to them.
And anyways, local can mean the city. A local band is any band from Edmonton, etc.
Is there really any local feeling expressed by our present ward system when one side of Whyte Avenue is in a different ward than the other side? The wards are artificial creations anyway. And note that there is no rule that a candidate has to live in the ward where he or she runs. Only voters are trapped within the wards where they live, unable to vote for someone running elsewhere in the city.
One person elected in the last election did not live in the ward he ran in. Where is local representation then?
===============================
while multi-member districts lead to proportionality, single-member districts create unfairness and wasted votes.
Bennett and Lundie in "Australian electoral systems" (2007) have this to say on the topic:
"The wrong result
A problem with elections conducted in single-member electorates is that occasionally it is possible for a party to receive a majority of first preferences across all electorates yet fail to win government. A party can have many of its votes locked up in safe seats, while its main opponent(s) may have votes spread much more evenly across the electoral map.
In 1990 the Labor Government, with only 39.4 per cent of first preferences, retained government despite its vote being 3.8 per cent behind the Coalition parties combined vote.
Eight years later the story was reversed, with Labor s vote margin over the Coalition of almost one per cent being insufficient to propel it into government"
This is even worse result than the winners' bonus seen so often in Alberta elections.
Thanks for reading.
======================================
Comments